Did I mention that I corrected the Wikipedia article on Rick Moody and made a small contribution to the entry on the old, failed comic book Tribe by Larry Stroman from the early 90s?

No real insight on John Seigenthaler, but it made me feel real cool. :-)

Okay, now to the serious stuff. Upon a second reading of the article, it's my interpretation that Seigenthaler probably did correct the Wikipedia article himself. His complaint seemed not to be so much that the information was posted and that there was nothing to be done, it was that he couldn't find out who posted it. Even though the false information had been picked up by two other web sites, it doesn't sound like he had much trouble getting them to pull it down either.

It is true that there are problems if you think that any online source is absolutely reliable, but in all truth, we've been spoiled by print references. No source is absolutely reliabel, and we should almost certainly double check all of our research, whether out source be Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I don't have much sympathy for Seigenthaler's indignance. Sure, you may not be able to find out who posted a questionable and possibly malicious rumor about you online, even in Wikipedia, but you're never going to find out who carved your phone number and the promise of a good time in the public bathroom either.

Has anyone checked out the new Wikipedia entry for Seigenthaler? Here's the first line:

"On October 5, 1954, Seigenthaler made national news not for his journalistic skills, but for his efforts in saving a suicidal man from jumping off a Nashville bridge."

The disinterested truth machine only rolls on from there.

And look at the discussion page! My god! Errors or not, can you even imagine self-analysis or public conversation like this from Britannica, let alone the NYT or USA TODAY? Let alone so QUICKLY? Wow.

Note also that the new Wikipedia article, as it stands, ain't great; it's pretty much a mish-mash of facts. No real focus, no sense of scale. We can be big fans of Wikipedia and still admit it's far from perfect.

That said, a mish-mash of facts in like 24 hours ain't bad!

Interesting link Ro, Seigenthaler apparently doesn't know how to edit articles. I don't about you guys, but I suspect the reason why the article remained incorrect for so long is well, nobody cares about that guy. I've never heard of him and I bet the people who would know about him are not the primary demographic of the 'pedia. Thus, if he had been more popular, the article would have more likely been correct. Somebody who actually knows the guy and his legit bio would have corrected it immediately! Indeed, it's bizzarae he didn't correct it himself. I bet most people his age would rarely, if ever make any corrections. The idea of an interactive encyclopedia IS revolution.

Ok, Aaron, so you are not a student of history, but good grief! Just because you do not know who the man is does not mean you can dismiss him! Talk about techno geek arrogance! Are you suggesting that millenials care more about the technology than the truth? As pointed out by others, the real issue is much bigger than the cool factor of an interactive encyclopedia. The issues are libel and unreliable information posted with malicious intent. The legacy of Mr. S is for the ages and so is his reputation--a priceless comodity in any medium.